Shouldn't the words "U.S. media" in the headline for that be replaced with "tv media"? Like the story says, newspapers are generally much more transparent.

And the issues of people resigning or being fired seems a little sketchy to ask for total transparency. Companies could face lawsuits for releasing too much information on personnel matters, so in most cases I think it comes down to trying to avoid being sued and not trying to hide something.

Sure, there could be more transparency in some cases, esp. from our larger broadcast brethren. But government transparency isn't just a question of ethics; it's a question of the law and how it's been rewritten and reinterpreted to allow for the government to hide more and more. There are no laws saying media companies have to reveal internal investigations or personnel issues. Some of it would be good to practice, but there aren't laws requiring it for the public good.

Oh, spare me. That's the joy of being a blogger -- you can say ridiculous stuff and people will automatically assume it's true.

I can't think of a time when a network or newspaper didn't react the way CBS reacted. And the writer's suggestion that it's because people in TV view themselves as "talent" and not journalists is ignorant and insulting. It takes nerve for a fucking blogger to pretend he's a journalist and Lara Logan isn't.

Bottom line: imagine it was reversed, and the Post screwed up the Benghazi story. When CBS calls, do you think the editor of the Post sits down for an interview explaining that the ownership also has a right-wing publishing imprint that had a book by this guy coming out that needed publicity, so they ran a big story on him and never figured out the story was bullshit? Because I do not, and I have never seen anything close to that from any media entity.

And again: it's silly to act like there's some gulf between TV and newspaper companies. They are the same companies. Even the Washington Post owned TV stations, at least until the Bezos deal.